Joe Bauer

Chris, I'll look. But what do I type in the search box to find this directly?

Can Jennifer Lawrence be hot enough and intriguing enough for the portrayal of sultry and multilingual Marita?

Lawrence is now into her prime as an actress. Maybe she can.

And who will portray Castro and macho man Sturgis?  Karl Urban?

Just accessed the link to "Billie Sol Estes: A Living Legend."

Admittedly not knowing much at all about Estes before reading this entry, I come away feeling his story adds more to the JFK assassination story than others may feel it does.

First, I see Estes as the consummate con man. Conning even himself most of his life. Much like all those crazy Southern evangelical preachers that all ended exposed as frauds. 

Conning himself into believing that his mix of religious moral value principles and doings ( he sees himself somewhat of a Robin Hood ) with his constant obsessive crooked scam manipulating doings somehow balances it all out ( the good and bad ) in the final analysis.

It would be so easy ( too easy ) however, to dismiss "everything" Estes and his co-author writes in their book as nothing more than just total B.S. from one of the best ever.

As I have so often expressed about not dismissing out-of-hand credibility damaged testimony , when you cross reference everything Estes says with other known testimonies and facts, I believe it's possible to filter through the B.S. and see many amazingly disturbing but true corroborating pieces of the JFK and even RFK and MLK murder puzzles.

One main theme that I see in Estes story that I see over and over and over again is the connection to organized crime on a scale that reinforces my take that America had been so corrupted in the 20th century by organized crime that this corruption is one of American society's top three legacies in this time period. It seems a mind boggling amount of our elected and appointed government officials  ( all the way to the top ) were in some way touched, effected and usually compromised by organized crime or other corrupt entities. 

The film the Godfather didn't come close to revealing the massive true influence and power this devil's cult had accumulated since the 1930's and through the JFK in Dallas times.

RFK's book "The Enemy Within" was an attempt at waking everyone up to the true reality power and influence existence of this megalithic monster ( or "cancer" if you will.)

Of course there were many other corruptions. Huge ones like big oil, military contracts, and countless other groups and "deals" as Estes calls them.

Estes world ( LBJ's too ) was one so married to corruption that to them, it was just a naturally accepted part of their daily thought processes and doings - their very existence.

This is one of the main truths and realities I see in reading Estes' book. And when he tells of his many years of dealings with organized crime figures it takes me back to the reality of how many high profile others in the JFK murder story were too. 
LBJ/Hoover/Nixon ... all compromised by organized crime corruption and often all the other groups I describe.

Military contractors, big oil, agricultural and other business and police agencies and so many other realms.

JFK and RFK were trying to exist and manifest their policies in a world so vastly corrupt, they never had a chance.

Like they were swimming against huge water waves of corruption in an inner tube.

Like I have said before, until all Americans come to the true grips ( emotionally and intellectually ) of the enormity of how corrupt this country has been throughout the 20th century ( and especially during the Kennedy years ) and in many ways still is all the way to the top, we will continue to be so much less of a society than we were ever meant to be.

Just this ending thought. Yes, the Kennedy's themselves and their wealth and influence and power were born out of corruption. That's an accepted fact.  But even very corrupt lineages ( through the fateful randomness of nature-or perhaps less corrupt maternal genes?) sometimes produce offspring whose inner nature is more inclined toward the higher humanity virtues.

In my mind and heart, JFK and RFK were of this enlightened trait.

But evil dark forces ( much greater in number ) prevailed over them and our societal ideals.

However much these corrupt forces effected JFK's and RFK's removal, I still think it couldn't be done without the approval of all the highest levels of our government and military in unison.  Which again demonstrates how pervasive this corruption was and some may say, still is.

Absolutely fascinating.

Nixon and his crew were so coldly corrupted it's incredible.

Nixon's only real concern ( his obsession ) that clearly comes through on this tape is how he could twist and spin Wallace's shooting into an advantage for him in the election. True concern for Wallace is barely mentioned.

And what's with Nixon stating several times that the JFK assassination was pinned on the right wing?

Where does he get that? 

It is still so disturbing that the American people aren't even close to understanding the true reality and level of Nixon's and LBJ's corruption.

They are kept in the dark with the sanctioned history writings that don't even get close to describing this in truth.

LBJ and Nixon both surely connected to JFK's slaughter first and exclusively with this same power obsession...how this would effect opportunities for them politically.  Cold blooded crooks.

15 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Joe,

First, Ruth Paine was NOT accepted in the Dallas White Russian community for two solid reasons: her Russian conversation skills were at the beginner level, and she was a Quaker, i.e she never went to the Russian Orthodox services on Sunday, where they gathered.

Ruth Paine studied Russian back in high school, but without conversational skills, all she could do was walk school boys through a textbook.

As for the simplistic politics of Michael Paine, please remember, Joe, that this was more than a half-century ago.

Finally, as for Ex-General Walker, in his WC testimony, Walker opines that Michael Paine may have been involved.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I've corrected the reference to the white Russians regarding Ruth.

However, who was it that came up with the idea of introducing Ruth to Marina?

I wonder if the Paines themselves may have at some time before their connections to the Oswalds been on the radar of some subversive concerned agency?  I mean, here you have two died-in-the-wool North Eastern liberals moving to the capital city of the most extreme right wing ideology with Ruth herself studying Russian and an active member of an international exchange program involving Russians ) and Michael with his side interests ( besides madrigal singing  ) of attending left wing ACLU meetings and even super right wing ones (out of curiosity?) and striking up leftist political ideology conversations with college students ... all before even meeting LHO?  

That's about as incongruous as die hard JBS followers moving to Berkeley, Calif. in the late 1960's.

I picture subversive detail agent James Hosty rubbing his hands together in excited glee and thinking...whew boy, I got a couple of hot ones here baby!

If the statements attributed to Ruth Paine by Paul T are true,  she gives first hand confirmation that the tapped phone call date was indeed 11,22,1963.  And she also states that the "we both know who's responsible" statement on that call was both accurate and made by her husband.

Wesley Liebeler was indeed wrong about the date of the call ( which as an innocent mistake is hard to believe )  and which was extremely important in giving Michael Paine an out where by he could honestly say he made no such phone call..."on that date."

Ruth Paine insists that any interviewer that asks for such be completely informed as to all her testimonies.

She seems to suggest she feels somewhat well informed about the JFK event through reading...but then she tells Trejo she didn't even know about the Lifton JFK book ( and how many others ? )  

And she indicates that she thought Vincent Buglosi's book was a good one as far as her education of the event?

Ruth Paine may be an intelligent woman in certain areas, but the impression one gets from hearing of her readings about 11,22,1963 indicates she is actually not well informed on the subject. That she hasn't really put legitimate time and effort into an adequate and "balanced" search for research truth.

Michael Paine's stumbling, disjointed, off subject answers to WC Wesley Liebeler questions regards the 11,22,1963 tapped phone call are clearly deliberate obfuscations and he knowingly keeps the wrong date in Liebeler's questioning from being corrected. He deliberately keeps from stating the full truth about that call as he knew it.

I watched a video interview of Michael Paine where he actually falls back on that silly LN hype of Oswald shooting JFK to make a statement that Oswald felt the world ( American and Russian systems ) needed change and that only violent actions could ever make real change happen. And implying Oswald was crazy enough to start that violence.

Paine also inferred that Oswald possibly acted on the the incredibly lucky and fateful circumstances of JFK's motorcade and limo route passing right below his workplace window. OMG ...I could change the world right here on a stack of books and right outside my window on my lunch break!  

Marina and my two baby girls will just have to understand I couldn't pass up such a lucky break like this.

Here again, Michael Paine is supposed to be a formally well educated man, but he expresses such simple minded thoughts that someone else came up with and promoted.

Paine says he and Oswald were both interested in the doings of the ultra right wing organizations to the point they actually attended one or more Dallas area meetings. M. Paine claims Oswald  related to him his shared negative feelings toward this extreme right political realm.

And this would explain Oswald perhaps taking a pot-shot at retired General Walker.

So, how does Paine explain the conflict of motive with right wing disliking Oswald going even farther than the Walker shooting in killing JFK, someone who was on Oswald's and Paine's side in disliking the far right wing?

There was an intellectual arrogance in Paine's talk of Oswald in this interview. Paine describes Oswald as a very uniformed person in the area of real political ideology.  He insinuates that Oswald was a pitiful figure in this regards, and blinded with an over-blown false reality sense of his own grasp and awareness of the subject.

You'd think someone of Paine's well nurtured privileged world ( he was a trust fund child ) and liberal, fair-minded slant beliefs would have more understanding empathy for a person like Oswald who at least tried to do more in his short and extremely underprivileged life than making model helicopters and getting jobs through his family.

The more M.Paine dismissed and painted Oswald as a pathetic figure ( he even described with disdain how he once had to step over Oswald's stretched out football game watching legs in his wife's living room one weekend day to find a seat there, as if to show what a lazy and thoughtless no count loser Oswald was) the more he revealed just how much he personally disliked Oswald, as did his wife Ruth. 

That strong personal bias is something to keep in mind when considering Paine's testimony about those one-on-one interactions with and what he truly knew of ( or felt ) about Oswald.

Of course there was a lot of less than well sourced, questionable credibility and over dramatized witness testimony content in Turner's series.

And the ominous sounding background score was equally overly dramatic and even cheesy and cheap at times. 

However, the justification for including these integrity risking elements makes sense in the same vein as Oliver Stone's film "JFK."

Who's going to spend much time watching long documentaries or pay money to watch a commercial film that doesn't have these "emotion playing and grabbing" colorings?

And who is going to finance an expensive world audience production that the financiers believe won't make a profit?

Turner's series grabbed me just like Stone's JFK, even though I knew both contained speculations and stretches.

However,  I  believe they both contained enough worthy and credible testimony and information ( mixed in with the opposite ) that I had not seen or heard before and that I feel brought me closer to a better and broader awareness of at least "some" parts of the over-all truth.

Even seeing the bad stuff in TMWKK could help in refining one's ability to discriminate such things as one researches these areas more thoroughly later on. 

On 7/29/2017 at 4:26 AM, Michael Clark said:

 

To be sure,  I respect that researcher authors have to be more careful and circumspect, Larry reminds us of that frequently. That comes from experience. I appreciate that and Larry will often say what his objections are, in critical terms.

As an example, I was, in large part, drawn back into this whole JFK case with Wynn Johnson's story. I did believe that it was possible and he seemed credible. When he posted his fourth video, all the characters came from back stage, surrounding him (David Ferrie, Loy Factor, David Atlee Phillips (again)) and he has not been back since, even to answer reasonable, friendly questions. So, I get it now, having gone through the process.

Lois is a credible witness to what she experienced and I believe her. She does not make more out of what she saw. Her daughter backs her up and is, likewise, credible. I have doubts about whether Lois saw John in Vegas, but she even told the story in such a way as to be clear that she was not 100% certain.

Michael, could you explain what your point was regarding Wynn Johnson and his fourth video? 

Yes, Lois does seem credible. She is clearly not a highly practiced and experienced xxxx like so many of the main characters involved in this story ... mainly high level politicians and agency people and those journalists who tow their lines.

Same with May Newman. These are average working class people.  The kind who seem to not even know how to lie well.

Absolutely agree regards your take on research authors and I feel total respect for everything they publish. That is another realm and has everything to do with hard evidence integrity and honesty and the years of digging and talented analyzing it takes to find and coherently categorize and make sense of it all.

I never even try to debate or counter that given reality, as I  never will make it 2 steps up that 20 rung ladder of work and research effort.

I sometimes throw my 2 cents worth of "average Joe" contemplating thoughts into threads that I find compelling not to counter the higher plane research facts ( as I academically can't) as much as feeling that there is still some validity, worthiness and room for the occasional simple common sense, honest working person gut feeling sharing in these JFK truth seeking postings.

I always remember and appreciate that Mark Lane interview of the weathered, stoic, man of few words, cowboy looking, over-pass witness "rail road man" Richard C Dodd who gave that elegant honest working man assessment of what he thought of Ruby killing Oswald.  

Something like ... " well, when a mans get shot handcuffed to two policemens why...somethin' else's goin on besides what should be." 

That short and simple honest working man statement says as much to me in regards to the common sense truth as more educated sounding ones in this whole affair. 

David, what percent of the content and claims in those last 3 episodes are questionable or from impugnable sources in your opinion ... 33 %, 65%, 90%?  If those testimonies reveal even 50 % of the truth...those episodes are invaluable.

When police are investigating a crime, they want to hear as much about it even if it is from sources who may be less than stellar law abiding citizens.

Investigators are looking for anything that can help fit as many pieces of the truth puzzle together as they can find no matter where and from whom it comes from. And honestly, many times bad characters give them more of these than good ones. 

Judyth Vary Baker, Madeline Brown, and some others may very well not be 100% credible or even 25% credible.  But let us hear them out and see if anything in their stories adds to or corroborates other testimony from other sources.

There are incredibly important aspects of the entire JFK event to consider when someone like May Newman tells us that she had first hand contact and conversation with Virginia Murchison family driver Jule Fieffer ( spelling? )  as well as the main Murchison family cook, that told of picking up J.Edgar Hoover at an airport to take him to a meeting at the Murchison house attended by LBJ the night before JFK was killed and that Hoover was indeed at this house for dinner at the Murchison house that evening.

The importance of this story is obvious...and all detractors can do is somehow say Newman is lying ( not for money that is for sure) or downplay or ignore her story and hope that very few ever see Newman's interview or understand it's potential importance.

Colonel Dan Marvin tells us of David Vanick and William Bruce Pister, whose suspicious death is also corroborated in some areas by Dennis David.

If true, My God, how important is this story?

Barr McClellan enlightens us to the relationship between Ed Clark and LBJ and the incredible power and corruption of those two and their mutual benefit activities. This is really important information as it gives us a "true" picture of the Texas power cabal and how they operated.

Include Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker and the murders of Henry Marshall and others who were serious threat obstacles to LBJ and those who he represented.

If it wasn't for Nigel Turner producing and publishing these documentary episode stories and testimonies...would we ever had heard of many of them from any other source?  There is so much important information about the JFK event and the main characters who benefited from it that comes along with the credibility questioned aspects of TMWKK. 

What I see with Nigel Turner and his TMWKK series is that he decided to film/record and publish many stories and testimonies that would clearly be seriously challenged for their veracity including lawsuits. 

Why take such risks?

My guess is that he figured why not place "everything" out there ( including these credibility questioned but provocative and compelling stories that had some ring of truth if even parts ) and let the controversy fire embers rise up and settle where they may.  That getting these more controversial JFK stories and testimonies out there was more important to him than leaving them completely out of the full narrative.

Turner's episode suggesting possible involvement of LBJ was attacked so aggressively and by people of such great power and influence it was banned here with public disclaimers issued. But I am glad that at least someone in this world with some media exposure clout got that story out there into the alternate historical record for us little people to at least know about and evaluate for ourselves as far as it's truths.

And E. Howard Hunt 's end of life testimonial echoing Turner's "Guilty Men" LBJ involvement episode deserves at least a little consideration in it's bolstering of that scenario.

Oliver Stone's "JFK"  took similar license, and I believe for these same reasons, but because commercial film is considered a creative art form no law suits could be filed as against Turner.  

Jim Garrison knew he'd never get a conviction of Clay Shaw (  Clay Bertrand )  but I also feel that his success was getting the case heard and recorded so that much of his years of research findings would get a world audience and permanently be in the public historical record.

Nobody will ever not acknowledge the massive important work in the JFK truth research effort that the pillars on this forum have and are still contributing nor consider most of their findings in any light but great respect.

Even so, there are times when I just feel a stronger compulsion to go with my life time experience gut in deciding whether there is something in a story that's more believable versus not. Considered to varying degrees of course. That take is not intellectually rational or credible to many people, but being human sometimes you just have to go  ( and a right to go ) with what you honestly feel and trust versus what others say no matter their standing. 

And when it comes to trusting and believing LBJ and his honesty versus average everyday working people, I seldom have a problem deciding who I  believe and trust more.

I  believe the following Nigel Turner subjects such as John Liggett's ex-wife's story more than not. Same with the Murchison maid May Newman, former special forces Dan Marvin,  Dennis David, and many others in Turner's pieces.

I appreciate Turner's docs as much as  I appreciate Oliver Stone's JFK and Jim Garrison's work and failed trial verdict of Clay Shaw.

Chris, I agree. 

I've never been visited like that but like most people it would shake me up.

And my reaction to all this scary agency visit concern about L.H. Oswald would make me view Oswald with much more serious concern than him simply being a clown and/or a flake.

Jim D I am going to Michael Paine's WC  testimony right now to fact check exactly what he said about the phone call and the time lines including his later date claims of such.  Paine sure held back a lot IMO.

The responses MP gave Liebeler when asked about the phone tap call were so meandering and off-point they were nonsensical and clearly obfuscating. MP's staggering was so obvious when confronted by this subject, more so than any others in his questioning.

14 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

The WC testimony of MP, that I have, does not provide a time for the call. AFAIK, Ruth is never asked.

 

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on      November 23, 1963,       there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before?
Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during        Saturday, November 23,       on the telephone?
Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?
Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not.
Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.

Thanks for posting this Micheal Paine WC testimony Michael.

Again, notice that Liebeler repeats the next day date twice in asking MP about the " we both know who's responsible" phone tap call.

IMO Liebeler does this to give MP deniability.  MP doesn't have to lie when denying being a party to this phone tap call because of that wrong date ( 11, 23,1963)

The phone tap call between Ruth and Micheal took place within one hour of the assassination on  11,22,1963.

When Oswald reportedly showed Micheal Paine a picture of himself brandishing a rifle and pistol while holding Commie magazines, I have to think that Michael Paine would not simply laugh off the rather aggressive gun toting photo as the actions of a clown.

Paine was supposedly a Pacifist as was Ruth - correct?  He was not the gun loving hunter type.  I don't know what I am but I've never owned or possessed any guns in my 65 years and when I do happen to socialize with others who like their guns and would proudly pose with them like Oswald, I cringe a little. The great majority of the people I have met like this always seemed much more aggressive and kind of military right or wrong types and I never purposely arrange to socialize with them again.

I'm just trying to put myself in " non-aggressive" Michael Paine's shoes when Oswald shows him the cocky gun holding photo. The pistol makes the photo and Oswald seem even more aggressively gung ho.

I wouldn't have laughed that photo off. And I would absolutely tell my wife about it knowing that this gun lover was staying in her home from time to time and around my children to boot.

Lastly, while the Paine's may not have been "100% committed" about Oswald's guilt during that 11,22,1963 phone tapped call, they clearly suspected him heavily, maybe even with 90% suspicion.

But they then suggest to each other in an implying way that they felt the radical right wing was responsible for JFK's death even if Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger.  What is the logic in their thinking and suspicions to connect the two?

They supposedly knew Oswald well enough to make distinct takes on what they felt he was all about.  In all that they saw and felt...what aspect of it were they using to link the radical right to Oswald in any way?

And when they say radical right and who put the JFK threatening posters and newspaper ads out there, they must have known the final power of the radical right were the richest men on Earth at that time...Texas Oil men.  And who did their bidding in the highest office way? Lyndon Johnson.

Can you have Oswald as the JFK trigger man and still have the wealthy radical right behind the murder? Please, I'd like to hear others take on the Paine's take.

Yes, truly Orwellian.

I noticed that during the 50th anniversary ( latter months of 2013 ) there were several so-called documentaries given national coverage with "new" explanations for JFK's murder. One was about a Secret Service agent in the follow up car accidentally firing the final JFK head shot. 

You could tell that the same powers-to-be as always had prepared for the 50th to make sure that their chosen dis-info people could flood the TV waves with these ridiculous theories to block out the legitimate conspiracy research ones and dissipate as much as possible any further public belief in these.

You could tell who had the money and power ( with the networks) to do this. 

I concluded that the same people who were covering up the truth starting on 11,22,1963 were still doing the same thing 50 years later.  That these same powers-to-be were still in charge and control.

What an ominous and depressing realization.

Oh, and didn't that JFK image tarnishing book by the former White House intern come out right at that time also? Gotta let people know that JFK was an immoral man. Closer to the "scum" Johnny Roselli loving Bill Harvey's widow described JFK and even his wife Jackie as.

Makes his killing seem a little less tragic to the naive younger generation public. 

Looking for a link to Prouty's interview with the ARRB, but cannot find one. Could you provide this?

Larry Hancock, are you of the opinion that Prouty "was" or "was not" a credible source in his views about the assassination?

Prouty had many up close, face to face, personal one-on-one contacts and even conversations with Lansdale over several years.

When you get to know and interact with someone that closely and who is a very powerful and important figure so that your meetings and contacts with this person are more memorable than those with no name underlings or casual work personnel, you can identify them from the back ( in a clear full figure, relatively up close, professionally shot photo such as the DP one )  in my mind.

Again, if that is Edward Lansdale, I think this fact would be one of the most important ever in the entire JFK 11,22,1963 affair.

One thing Prouty doesn't get right in this video is the time of the Tramp walk.

It couldn't have been just 5 minutes after JFK was shot in DP.

 Just the amount of time it took for officers to get to and search the box cars and then find these three would have taken much more time than 5 minutes after 12:30 PM Dallas Time on 11,22,1963.

Remarkable documents on Chambers etc. 

Amazing the work and findings by members of this forum.

When one looks at the photo close up of the three tramps as they are being escorted you notice they are all clean shaven. As if they had shaved that morning. Train box car hobo's generally aren't so grooming conscious and where are their grooming accessories such as razors?

Their clothing was described as "dirty?" Doyle's clothes certainly do not look dirty or hoboish at all. In fact they look somewhat fashionable. Sports coat, knit shirt with a turned up collar, nice shoes. There is some wrinkling on Doyle's and the tall tramps jackets but not enough to look like they have slept overnight in dirty box cars. Same thing with soiling or stains.

Were the tramps ever described as smelling of liquor or wine?

Did any of the tramps appear to be teetering or in any other way impaired in their walking as if one or more was boozed up?

Even though the taller tramps hair is slightly tousled, the tramps look like they have had hair cuts recently enough to not look like grooming neglecting box car tramps.

The shorter tramp in back does have a more trampy look and his clothes are that wrinkled, but to me his appearance seems almost staged. That crumpled hat should show more soiling. That little bag he is carrying? What was recorded as far as it's contents? Maybe shaving items?

The escorting officer behind the tramps in the photo does seem very far back relative to the seriousness of the day and as Prouty pointed out, both officers seem to hold their guns in an unprofessional way.

And if the tall, thin, slightly stooped man in nice, non-working man clothing walking by and within inches of the tramps is Lansdale, My God!

Lansdale's presence in DP just two hours after the shooting could reveal huge answers as to who was involved in the conspiracy.

There's so much material dedicated to discrediting C. David Heymann ( almost over-the-top ) to the point I wonder about whether there are other personal agendas ( the Kennedy's protecting their image ) fueling and exaggerating this relative to the accurate truth?

Here again we have an obviously talented writer who is accused of occasionally playing fast and loose with the research facts and materials for his biographies, but still garnered enough respect from major publishers to get many book deals with pretty good advances.

Was the man eccentric? Probably, but so many well known writers have been this way or worse.

I wanted to know more about Heymann after reading here that the highly provocative statement accorded to Cord Meyer regards who Meyer thought killed his ex-wife ( "the same bunch that killed Kennedy") came from Heymann.

If so, I cannot simply dismiss the alleged Cord Meyer ( "the same bunch that killed Kennedy" ) Heymann statement just because many people have written discrediting pieces on Heymann.

Didn't Heymann get a lot of biography tales right? Of course he did.

Just more good stuff from and about V.P.

Whenever you see the interviews of Clint Hill with his "co-writer" sitting next to him you know that the entire format is extremely controlled.  

I wouldn't doubt that before he signs to speak anywhere, the sponsors are provided a list of "appropriate" questions and "inappropriate" ones.  Also, I notice that Hill seems coached and one aspect of this is how he purposely eats up much interview time going into time consuming details about subjects that are not that important.

The interviews seem so controlled they are hard to watch from a perspective of research knowledge beyond the neophyte.

Could you imagine a hard cross examination of both Hill and Blaine by someone who knows perhaps even more than they do about the JFK protection protocol and their history of his protection?

McCubbin seems suspiciously odd to me. And now that I know her background as related in Joseph Green's review, I wonder if she isn't or hasn't been connected in some way to some intel agency.

I also believe Hill fell in love with Jackie Kennedy while accompanying her so closely right in the most physically attractive times of their lives. I think one of the reasons Hill went into the depths of depression for years was strongly because of his feeling of loss in this regards. I think his ability to recall so many emotionally touching details ( all praising Jackie Kennedy fondly)  about his closer than most employer/employee relationships with her reflects his deeper feelings.

"David Jacobs" is one of the most well known UFO abduction phenomenon researchers and best selling writers.

He concludes an ET/Human hybrid race is being created to replace us regular humans here on Earth.

Bush did write back to George DeM with a salutation greeting of "Dear George."

How many people in this country get a "direct, first name personal greeting response" back from the head of such a powerful agency after writing them one-on-one and desperately asking for their assistance?

That to me is indicative of a closer and more personal relationship between Bush and DeM than that suggested of a wanna-be who simply wrote letters to many high officials.

George DeM was clearly a social/business climber who never quite made it. But I still feel that he had closer ties to Bush than down players portray. If anything...socially.

They didn't live very far apart and hung out with the same Texas oil business groups and circles.

That Garrison hit piece documentary with the  jive talkin' Daddy-O Deano Andrews being questioned by the almost demonic looking Jack Webb look and sound alike is still to this day one of the most humorous interviews of a main NO Garrison investigation character.

If you didn't know the interview was real ( as a documentary ) you'd for sure think it was something straight out of a John Candy comedic movie.

Andrew's lied so much it was pathetic. Especially Shaw not being Bertrand which everyone knows wasn't true.  Andrews said or implied to Garrison that he lied about Shaw not being Bertrand out of fear for his life.

Now that excuse, I believe. 

Garrison should have provided David Ferry 24 hour guard until his grand jury testimony. Losing Ferry was the biggest blow to his case.

Andrews once claimed that when he heard Oswald was passing out pro-Castro leaflets just a couple blocks from his office, he waddled on down there and confronted Oswald...asking him what he was doing there.

He stated that Oswald said simply "it's a job." And Andrews then reminded Oswald that he ( Oswald ) still owed him legal fees before he left Oswald.

Truth? With Andrews you just couldn't be sure.

I just checked the time of sunrise in New Hampshire for the date of November 9th.

It was listed at 6:31 am.

Now maybe some member here could tell us if that 6:31 am "sunrise time"  means when the sunlight is at the very first noticeable beginning of it's visibility ( in which it would still be hard to see things clearly from a 100 foot or more distance ) or full visibility?

But either way I would surmise that at 6: am in New Hampshire on November 9th, there is no sunlight yet visible and at 6:15 am very little.

And unless the entire Sullivan shooting episode as described by the young man shooter ( the fatal shot, the walk to Sullivan's body with a hesitation at 50 feet away, a shocking scene of a wounded human versus a deer and kneeling evaluation of the wound, then an attempt at resuscitation by CPR, then a picking up and carrying effort of Sullivan's body which proved too physical after 15 feet, then a run to the shooter's vehicle and drive to the Chief Young's home to barge in his bedroom at 6:30 am ) took no more than 15 minutes, it just seems too apparent that the shooting took place in the dark or near dark.

And as one forum member who hunts said, you don't take shots at deer in those limited light conditions.

The physical area death and crime scene was obliterated when the young man picked up Sullivan's body and dragged or carried it 15 feet. Think of the crime scene evidence that was lost. The position and poster of the body where it fell could have possibly revealed from which direction the fatal shot came. Also perhaps the distance?

But the time of the fatal shot is so crucial here in regards to the factor of darkness or near darkness and the question of someone shooting at any target when they can't even make out what it is they are shooting at.

And ear witnesses. Was there even "one" besides the shooter?

Sullivan's 3 party hunting friend should have heard that shot. He was out there tromping around in the dark at the same time as Sullivan and the young man, yet he wasn't miles away.

I should have not said it was a check without fact checking Veciana's own words.

But he did claim the pay off and it was this large amount.

I don't think even E. Howard Hunt ever received that large a sum in one chunk.

Was this keep quiet hush money, reward money, go away money?

Did Veciana ever explain why he was handed such a fortune like this?